Enterprise Pic

I never realized my George Lucas statement would evoke so much defensive demeanor. I could care less if they built the Enterprise in orbit, or in Detroit at the GM plant. i was just stating what i have read. My concern is the redesign of the Enterprise. but that seems to foster alot of shit too. I am sure there are many people out there that would agree with what I have said. just as there are many who would agree with anyone on here about their views. Hollywood is going to do whatever it feels like despite what anyone in these forums say. I just come in here to vent. when it comes to Star Trek, I'm Old School.

aridas sofia said:
The only thing the past shows us about the future is how dramatically different it will be. We do have nearly fully automatic kitchens. Robots that scrub the floors, microwaves that can prepare pre-packed meals in seconds, ovens that can refrigerate food, then use pre-programmed instructions to have your meal cooked and ready to eat when you get home, and refrigerators that have a link to a world wide web of information, including the means of having your groceries delivered to you based on electronic tagging that tells your refrigerator when you've used up your milk!.

The future? That will be unrecognizable. Arthur Clarke told me so.

Click to expand...

I agree completly.. I think it was "any sufficiantly advanced technology would be indestingueshible from magic" (excuse the spelling).

You might not believe this, but so am I... Out of all the series, the original and those movies "feel right to me" (but that might because they were more about people at their heart) but that doesn't mean I'm agianst change or even a re-interruption of what came before. Hours and hours of Star Trek beat one thing into my head - don't dismiss something out of hand just because it different or new.

Before I start coming down on someone for their artistic choices, I at least want to give them a chance and you know actually fail first. Even then I'd be remiss to do so since as fans its always easy to armchair direct/produce when nothings much at stake for us compared to actually sitting down and writing a script or making artistic choices that cost a studio money and time.

The least Trekkian concept around this place is the idea of a "purist".

rideop1 said:
Am I the Onbly one that read "The Making Of Star Trek" ands numerous other publications that stated the ENTERPRISE was constructed in orbit under the aegis of the old san Francisco Navy Yard?

Click to expand...

Publications are irrelevant.

No one onscreen has ever said whether the ship was built on Earth or in orbit. They have complete freedom to do as they desire, without violating a stitch of continuity - because no episode or film ever stated where the ship was built.

Click to expand...

Your notion is irrelevant.

ModernTrek violated plenty of established trek history and tradition (like the no turning in warp nonsense from VOYAGER, when warp maneuvers are key to TOS battles and the intercept in TMP.)

JonnyBoy said:
Hey everyone, first time poster, long time reader. I thought I'd chime in and offer my take on the Enterprise (based on the little that we've seen so far.) I made this quickly for the simple purpose of getting an idea of the basic shape and proportions of the "new" Enterprise. Looks pretty damn fine to me. FYI, the yellow figures are supposed to represent people (Though I don't presume to know the correct scale, I just took a shot in the dark.)

Starship Polaris said:
One thing that "Star Trek" was not was an "original concept."

Click to expand...

And I think that's something that fans forget. George Clayton Johnson, writer of "The Man Trap" and co-writer of Logan's Run (the novel), stated in an interview once that Star Trek was in a similar vein to the Captain Future stories of the 1930s. Trek, especially TOS, was greatly influenced by what came before it and some of what was contemporary with it. It is the synthesis of all the sub-genres of science fiction; it has been speculative, military sf, hard and soft sf, and a great deal of space opera. In fact, I have come to view Trek, both aired/filmed and lit, as another sub-genre of science fiction.

This has got me all excited, properly excited. Ive not been like this since my anticipation for the "big reveal" of Enterprise, only to be disappointed and, well, kinda pissed off that my imagination had been robbed of its creativeness for a brief few moments.

Seriously though, its got me all excited. The outer CG shots look amazing. Always wanted to see this ship "under construction" and this is just what i imagined, well sort of.

Its very industialised though, going by the teaser trailer. Kind of reaching out the non-trek-fans i suppose, but i agree with a few others, its very nuBSG.

ancient said:
I did some brightness/contrast manipulation and erased the big boom out of the background. Then I traced over it. The layers below are the result.

Looks like those things under the bridge are staying.

Click to expand...

Nice way of picking out the details. I still dont understand the need for the overuse of detail. By that i mean, its almost OTT. Look at the bridge dome/housing, its stacked dome after dome. Theres three domes on that thing.

Why do we need three domes?

Yeah, i know, its cool to have detail. But seriously, even TMP era Enterprise had one dome on top of the main housing.

Kadratis said:

Samurai8472 said:

Flake said:
I seriously think the bridge is now huge, look at the opening in the top - it looks like an enormous computer display on the back wall, i'm not sure what else it could be.

There's actually onscreen precedent for building things like starships using something like transporter technology: Genisis.

Spock stated to McCoy that Genisis "would destroy such life, in favor of its new matrix." It's a easy to see that Genisis would make use of transporter technology to beam in the old matter and reorder into a "new matrix" that was selected by the user.

Of course, things didn't work so well on a planetary or solar system scale (though somehow it worked well enough to bring Spock back to life and his body was stable for decades), but given the success it did have, building a starship in a similar method would be trivial.

Spock stated to McCoy that Genisis "would destroy such life, in favor of its new matrix." It's a easy to see that Genisis would make use of transporter technology to beam in the old matter and reorder into a "new matrix" that was selected by the user.

Of course, things didn't work so well on a planetary or solar system scale (though somehow it worked well enough to bring Spock back to life and his body was stable for decades), but given the success it did have, building a starship in a similar method would be trivial.

I pasted together two images from the pan shot to get a more complete look at the underside of the saucer. Unfortunately, because of all the crap in the foreground, I had to do a lot of manipulation. Erasing the background was easy, but there is that huge vertical column on the left...

Anyway, my trace-over turned out looking a little weird. But I am interested in the lower part. It looks like there are six little dots that could be forward-facing phasers. All six are visible, I didn’t mirror that part. There was some slanted thing visible that I erased, but it could be a pylon of the ship. (it's traced in blue on the top image)

cbspock said:
If this turns out to be the best Star Trek film ever, will people still be whining about the Enteprise being built on earth, and welding????

Click to expand...

Welcome to the TrekBBS.

Click to expand...

Technically, all the plaque on the NCC-1701 ever said was "San Francisco." Those shipyards could easily extend to ground-based construction yards in the Mojave/Nevada area. No canon has ever said the ship was originally built in an orbital spacedock or drydock.

Spock stated to McCoy that Genisis "would destroy such life, in favor of its new matrix." It's a easy to see that Genisis would make use of transporter technology to beam in the old matter and reorder into a "new matrix" that was selected by the user.

Of course, things didn't work so well on a planetary or solar system scale (though somehow it worked well enough to bring Spock back to life and his body was stable for decades), but given the success it did have, building a starship in a similar method would be trivial.

Spock stated to McCoy that Genisis "would destroy such life, in favor of its new matrix." It's a easy to see that Genisis would make use of transporter technology to beam in the old matter and reorder into a "new matrix" that was selected by the user.

Of course, things didn't work so well on a planetary or solar system scale (though somehow it worked well enough to bring Spock back to life and his body was stable for decades), but given the success it did have, building a starship in a similar method would be trivial.

Click to expand...

With that kind of thinking, they couldn't have justified decommissioning the enterprise, they'd just beam a new airlock onto the side of her, beam/swap out some hull plates and she'd be good as new. You guys are throwing some waytoofancy tech at TOS, given what we saw in the films (which were admittedly retro in a lot of ways relative to the series.)